|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 2:34PM
#141
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
Personal opinion...
The best characterization of 1st Edition and 2nd Edition style dual-classing I've ever seen was in a novel. A soldier rediscovers his talent for magic after spending years suppressing it due to horrific experiences as an apprentice wizard.
Using that as an example, from a purely roleplaying standpoint, it serves well to represent...
A reformed thief who became a paladin, but finds a need for his old skills at some point.
A cleric who loses his faith and takes up life as a mercenary fighter, only to renew his faith at a later point in the campaign.
A fighter who tires of war and bloodshed and becomes a cleric/healer, but is forced to use his old combat skills again later on.
Now, I should not that all of those concepts can also be covered by other styles of multi-classing. The dual-classing system just has a mechanical enforcement, so to speak. I used the dual-classing rules precisely once, for a fallen paladin NPC who dual-classed as a thief and took up banditry.
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 2:35PM
#142
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
So, it's more of like "here's a massive temporary experience penalty, once you're done with it, you get to be a gestalt" thing?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 2:54PM
#143
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2013
|
2e-style dual-classing (the thing that only humans got) is frankly baffling to me
It's baffling to me as well, can someone actually describe how it works in noob terms?
I explained every detail of it in THIS post in another thread, post #174.
To sum up:
1) The PC had to be human.
2) He had to have at least a 15 in the prime req's of his first class and at least a 17 in the prime req's of his second class.
3) Once the PC switches to his next class, he can never gain levels or XP in his old class again.
4) He can never go back to his original class.
5) Once he switches, he is back at 1st level with 0 XP (but does retain HPs and hit dice).
6) If he uses ANY of his old class's abilities, he gains only 1/2 XP for the encounter and the adventure.
7) He gains no additional hit dice or hit points while progressing in the new class.
Only after the PC progresses in his new class past the level of his original class are the restrictions lifted and he gets the benefits of his old class back (without sacrificing XP). He then starts gaining HPs and hit dice that go along with the new class.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind."
- H.P. Lovecraft
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 3:06PM
#144
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
I can take my position because there are inherent flaws with the decision they have made irregardless of how they "fix it".
Do you not realize how ridiculous this sounds?
"Even if they fix the problems, they won't fix the problems!"
Just because you can't figure out how the flaws might not be quite so inherent doesn't mean they can't. Your imagination should not be the limit of all things possible.
There are a number of different dimensions all related to the issues with 3e multiclassing. There are numerous ways that it effects play both from the GM angle and from the player perspective. This effects everything from the narrative and themes of the setting to the mathmatics and functionality of characters.
Believe me, as a GM since the blue box days I can ensure you that I could write many long and boring dissertations on the various flaws with this choice. But this forum is neither the time nor place for a high minded discussion on the seen and unseen aspects of game design decisions.
The fact that they are choosing one of the single most ridiculed aspects of 3e to base the core rules around tells me tons. I see no indication that this will be optional, and that by its very nature will effect the entire meta of the game.
They have cast their lot in with a design decision that carries a number of consequences. It would be better if they just threw the class system away to begin with than choose a worst of both worlds solution. Most of the current players seem to want that anyhow around here.
Or better yet; Just go back, dump the "we respect all editions of DnD" act and make DnD 3.75, as that is what they seem to be striving to do. WotC seems to think that defines the core of DnD anyhow (Which from their perspective is probably true).
I like 3.5 style multiclassing and they have indicated that they will try and fix it. SWSE fixed it BTW although you will still probbaly hate it. Someone was going to get hurt ove rit as if they picked 4th ed stlye multiclasisng the 3.5 players will be up in arms all over again- see 2008.
2nd ed multiclassing would be another optin but it doesn't really work that well when everyone has a unified xp table and 4th ed multiclassing won't work because D*DN is not powers based so 3.5 type MCing kind of wins by default IMHO.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 5:32PM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
....
That makes no sense at all. I don't mean this as a criticism on you, I think you've explained it well enough (maybe?), I just have no idea why anyone would have thought to include that in a rulebook as a good idea.
I don't know either. As I said, I never used the rule. I opted for non-human multiclassing when I wanted to do more than one class at a time.
well, I've used it quite a bit. It allowed you to abuse the rules. This was about the only way you could exploit front loading of class abilities. Many people would dual class fighter until 4th level and gain weapon specialization and then switch to the new class. You got 4 levels of d10 hit points (which was huge in 2e because you didn't gain much hp after level 10) . You also picked up more attacks per round, which was a great boon for the rogue. Another important point is that xp in 2e worked very differently. Those first 4 levels wouldn't cost you that much xp (8000) and by the time you got to high levels you had so much xp that you didn't miss it at all (millions of XP), you would be the same level or just one level under everyone.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 5:34PM
#146
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
In second ed you could get weapon specialisation at level 1 and not just level 4. That was 3.0.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 5:38PM
#147
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
In second ed you could get weapon specialisation at level 1 and not just level 4. That was 3.0.
lol... you are right! And you could specialize in many weapons. I totaly forgot that.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 7:38PM
#148
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2013
|
In second ed you could get weapon specialisation at level 1 and not just level 4. That was 3.0.
lol... you are right! And you could specialize in many weapons. I totaly forgot that.
The only drawback...if you can really call it a drawback...is that specialization cost 2 weapon proficiency slots each. At level 1, a fighter could be proficient in 4 different weapons, or specialized in 2. Every third level he gained a new weapon prof. point, so it would take a fighter getting to level 6 to gain a third specialized weapon. The bonuses to hit and damage, though, nicely offset this drawback.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind."
- H.P. Lovecraft
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 1:10AM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2006
|
SWSE fixed it BTW although you will still probbaly hate it. Someone was going to get hurt ove rit as if they picked 4th ed stlye multiclasisng the 3.5 players will be up in arms all over again- see 2008.
SWSE fixed it for classes that had no spell progression (all of them in SWSE). Since by far the biggest problem with multiclassing 3e-style was with spell progression I think it's rather hard to say it provides a solution.
In second ed you could get weapon specialisation at level 1 and not just level 4. That was 3.0.
lol... you are right! And you could specialize in many weapons. I totaly forgot that.
You could only specialise with one weapon by PHB rules. You need supplementary material to specialise more than once - some kits, and an option in the Handbooks.
These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling,
And took their wages, and are dead.
Playing: Mongoose Traveller
GMing: Barbarians of Lemuria
Planning: Reclaiming Neverwinter, a 4e D&D campaign
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 2:32AM
#150
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
I want to express my ideas for multi-class characters again.
You can gain a level in any class you want but you get the hit points and powers of that level. You can't exceed the maximum total levels of the game. If that limit is 20th level then you can be a 10th level fighter, 10th level wizard for example. If you become a mixed fighter caster, you are restricted to average armor and weapons and do average spell damage. But you also get exclusive powers of the mixed class such as ranger only cleric only powers.
|
|
|
